Posted - 2011.10.10 23:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
How about instead of making them arenas, make them an entire system that you have to speak to an agent to get into, and only certain size ships are allowed into the systems.

Posted - 2011.10.11 15:42:00 -
[37] - Quote
Lately it just seems like our regular PITA Joe Risolo is coming up with blatantly stupid ideas that would indeed be game-breaking. You want an Arena? Go play WoW or some other lame MMO that caters to that crap.

List of reasons this is a bad idea:- Takes away from the spontaneity of low sec combat- Creates PvP without risk, thus basically watering down PvP altogether- It is stupid- It would ultimately result in a rigid, rule-driven "feature"- It would result in whole **** ton of new exploits, as people always find a way around the system- It is stupid- It would pretty much kill activity in low sec, which is already a ghost town due to people like you- It would kill the ability for groups to truly go hunting in low sec, as all the typical victims would be in their safe little Arena with their bunny slippers, snuggie and hot cocoa- It would create MORE ISK generated from PvE- Did I mention that it is stupid?- It would completely illegitimize the "Bounty Hunter" career path by creating stupid Arena bounties (rather than bounties earned by hunting down targets and mercilessly killing them)

TL;DR

Stupid idea is stupid."War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-a It is measured in terms of who survives."

Lately it just seems like our regular PITA Joe Risolo is coming up with blatantly stupid ideas that would indeed be game-breaking. You want an Arena? Go play WoW or some other lame MMO that caters to that crap.

List of reasons this is a bad idea:1) Takes away from the spontaneity of low sec combat2) Creates PvP without risk, thus basically watering down PvP altogether3) It is stupid4) It would ultimately result in a rigid, rule-driven "feature"5) It would result in whole **** ton of new exploits, as people always find a way around the system6) It is stupid7) It would pretty much kill activity in low sec, which is already a ghost town due to people like you8) It would kill the ability for groups to truly go hunting in low sec, as all the typical victims would be in their safe little Arena with their bunny slippers, snuggie and hot cocoa9) It would create MORE ISK generated from PvE10? Did I mention that it is stupid?11) It would completely illegitimize the "Bounty Hunter" career path by creating stupid Arena bounties (rather than bounties earned by hunting down targets and mercilessly killing them)

TL;DR

Stupid idea is stupid.

1) No, this does not effect the spontanious combat aspect of low sec, because it is not in low sec.

2) We've established already that there are risks, you're still gonna lose your ship, you can still be podded. Read all post before you decide to stick your nose in it.

3) Troll

4) The only rule of this is you have to be in the pocket to be involved, other than that, it's basically a low sec dead space pocket in high sec.

5) What in the hell are you talking about?

6) Still a troll

7) Well, you have the option of staying in low sec where everything is dead, or going into one of these "arenas" where you can actually do some pvp.

8) If you don't like bunny slippers, snuggies, and coco, you can stay where you're lacking pvp, hating life, and complaining about the risk reward factor, ie low sec.

9) How would it create more isk generated from pve? It's not even related to pve...

10) Yes, you did mention you were a troll

11) The bounties earned in arenas are no where near the value of merc'ing someone. Not even close. Plus, killing someone in an arenas with their own bounty from other players wouldn't pay out. You have to kill them outside the arenas to get the big bounties.

Here's some more food for thought......

1) Low sec dwellers complain all the time about high sec dwellers having all reward with little risks through mining and lvl 4 missions, yet they rarely stop to look at the fact that "everyone can go into high sec"...Ahh!!! What's this? You mean, everyone can do the same thing instead of bitching about it? Correct. If you have too low a sec status that's your own fault. You decided to go into low and blow people up. But you can go rat and run lvl 5's to get your sec status back up.. Crazy I know, and even if you didn't want to do that, you can make an alt to stay in high sec and run mission to fund your low sec alt....What? That's such a good idea it's stupid!!!

2) You low sec pvp'ers sit here and constantly complain about how low sec is dieing and less ppl are getting involved in pvp, yet ya'll never notice that most of this is caused by gate camps. Then, when someone does suggest that gate camps are causing the issue ya'll defend it and say "No, gate camps are a valid part of eve." Which basically means "We wanna change low sec without having to change low sec." making yourselves sound like all these protestors complaining on wall street and what not about all the things wall street and the government are doing wrong, yet if they hadn't done anything they'd be complaining about that. If you're gonna wine reguardless, then just go wine and don't make it about something that you would have wined about if it had not changed.

3) With these arenas there a lot like both comment 1 and 2. How it ties to one. You have the oportunity to come and get involved in these as well, so complaining about how you can't get pvp and the risk reward factor isn't in low sec, maybe you can come to high sec and have easy to find pvp arenas and rewards.

How it ties to two. Then, maybe CCP will notice what is working in these arenas and restructure low sec to match... That way it's easier to find pvp, and pvp might be rewarding besides killmails, but then again that would be possitive change for low sec, and we all know low sec dwellers want change without change. Basically, they don't want low sec to change, they just want everyone forced into low sec so they can blow them up.

Quit complaining about my post and start makind lagitimate post of your own. I'm suggesting ideas whether you think they're good or bad. Which could possibly help the Eve community.

All you're doing is trolling the forums looking for something that doesn't directly benefit you to bash.

Seriously, if you don't like it then suggest good valid reasons why it won't work.

I have every right to be on here that you do. Perhaps you should be reported for trolling, cause I can't think of any other reason you'd report me other than trolling.

I've seen you on several forums that someone has bumped several times.

GTFO

Follow the rules idiot.

And I already said why this is a bad idea, or did you just ignore it because its....the precise reason this will never happen.

This is a sandbox game. We already have the means to do what you want, but you want it regulated and controlled by CCP. That is a terrible idea. Get some people to regulate it. Have them in pvp ships ready to destroy anyone that enters your little "arena" to mess with it. Wow. Your own personal security.

Seriously, there are so many ways this could be implemented BY PLAYERS with current mechanics. Effort is hard amirite?

And I already said why this is a bad idea, or did you just ignore it because its....the precise reason this will never happen.

This is a sandbox game. We already have the means to do what you want, but you want it regulated and controlled by CCP. That is a terrible idea. Get some people to regulate it. Have them in pvp ships ready to destroy anyone that enters your little "arena" to mess with it. Wow. Your own personal security.

Seriously, there are so many ways this could be implemented BY PLAYERS with current mechanics. Effort is hard amirite?

O wait, you just want CCP to hold your hand. Carry on.

So wait? I'm an idiot because I want CCP to regulate something that could be taken advantage of?

But yet, the droves of people that want CCP to push ice just into low/null sec, that want CCP to find a way to make PVP more viable and easier to find in low sec, and want CCP to make faction warfare more viable, they're not idiots?

Did you catch what I just did there? These are all things that PLAYERS can control, but they want CCP to jump in and fix it cause it's not working the way they want it to.

For some of us high sec dwellers pvp isn't working the way we want it to because we can't get involved without someone interupting the fight, baiting us, or gate camping us on our way out to find pvp.

If i'm an idiot because I want some regulated pvp that keeps people from steam rolling with gate camps and capital blobs, then I guess everyone who wants CCP to fix low sec pvp, ice, wormholes, FW, and all that other crap must be idiots too because they can't regulate it themselves?

Cause that's what you're saying. Keep saying it's a sand box and players should be in full control, but yet when other people suggest CCP take a leaf blower to the sand box in order to fix all this other player driven crap, it's cool, BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY BENEFITS YOU!!!!!

Seriously, if you don't like it then suggest good valid reasons why it won't work.

You're in the F&I forum... it doesn't work like that here. YOU are proposing an idea to US. The onus is on YOU to convince US that this is a good idea, that it won't break other areas of the game, and it won't step on the toes of others who choose not to partake in it.

Now here's my piece...

The general layout of your idea isn't BAD. In fact, it has a nice structure to it (which, I assume, is the point).However, I see EvE as a "sandbox" game and so on principle I do not support "controlled" environments and systems... especially those that artificially condense/control the player population within a certain area.

In any other game, I'm sure you'd find widespread support... however... given that this thread is already on page 3, the majority of the posts here are from the same 5 or people, you aren't being relentlessly trolled to oblivion, and you're now starting to bump the thread to keep it on the front page... I think it's safe to assume that the general community neither dislikes your idea, nor likes it either."Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."~Unknown

So wait? I'm an idiot because I want CCP to regulate something that could be taken advantage of?

But yet, the droves of people that want CCP to push ice just into low/null sec, that want CCP to find a way to make PVP more viable and easier to find in low sec, and want CCP to make faction warfare more viable, they're not idiots?

Did you catch what I just did there? These are all things that PLAYERS can control, but they want CCP to jump in and fix it cause it's not working the way they want it to.

For some of us high sec dwellers pvp isn't working the way we want it to because we can't get involved without someone interupting the fight, baiting us, or gate camping us on our way out to find pvp.

If i'm an idiot because I want some regulated pvp that keeps people from steam rolling with gate camps and capital blobs, then I guess everyone who wants CCP to fix low sec pvp, ice, wormholes, FW, and all that other crap must be idiots too because they can't regulate it themselves?

Cause that's what you're saying. Keep saying it's a sand box and players should be in full control, but yet when other people suggest CCP take a leaf blower to the sand box in order to fix all this other player driven crap, it's cool, BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY BENEFITS YOU!!!!!

How does one fit so much assumption and stupidity into one post?

Form a corp (ala red v blue) and do it that way and bam, pvp for your high sec pubbie self.

As for everything else you stupidly mentioned, some of those things are legitimately broken; FW mechanics are a joke and easily taken advantage of; low sec is a barren waste and the risk:reward ratio needs tweaking; wormholes...nothing; ice should not be in high sec (personal opinion, completely separate topic).

Your entire point that you don't want people gate camping/blobbing/etc is wrong though. Those are all in-game mechanics that are designed to be the way they are. You have the potential to defend against them. As I said, do it in high sec; create an "arena corporation/alliance." Or do it in low sec and have protection/security. Or do it in wormhole space and just be careful. Or do it in null sec. So much potential to create this "arena" yourself but you don't want to because its "hard and other players will be mean to you." That is pathetic.

You're in the F&I forum... it doesn't work like that here. YOU are proposing an idea to US. The onus is on YOU to convince US that this is a good idea, that it won't break other areas of the game, and it won't step on the toes of others who choose not to partake in it.

I agree, but if everyone that posted hated the idea, I'd see where those who don't wouldn't need to put in some suggestions of why it wouldn't work, but with a mix of good and bad notes, I'd say some suggestions to why it wouldn't work are called for.

Now, as far as suggesting to low sec dwellers that this is a good idea, that won't happen because they feel obligated to have all the pvp brought to them. Although, with this scenario situation, they could easily come to the pvp arena and duke it out whith way more people than they could trying to find them in low sec.

Now, this also doesn't necissarily step on toes either. What it actually does is get more people involved in pvp that normally wouldn't because they don't like low/null sec pvp. Which in turn also gives those who want more pvp and to have it easier to find, exactly what they want, while allowing it to be more controlled the way high sec dwellers would want it, but still risky since you can lose ships and pods just as easy.

[quoteNow here's my piece...

The general layout of your idea isn't BAD. In fact, it has a nice structure to it (which, I assume, is the point).However, I see EvE as a "sandbox" game and so on principle I do not support "controlled" environments and systems... especially those that artificially condense/control the player population within a certain area.[/quote]

I enjoy both possitive and negative feed back as long as it's conversational feedback, and not hate mongering. I enjoy your feed back most of the time, but even with the negative feed back, i have the right to defend and possibly alter the idea based on player suggestions. Hell, one person can suggest something and others agree that it should be involved, and it'll be basically implemented into the idea. Much like pod killing was earlier in the forum.

Now, when it comes to be "controlled" - It's really not. all it is doing is creating small dead space pockets inside high sec that are low sec, because, we'll say for lore reasons, the atmosphere in the area keeps concord's sensors from detecting any type of destrubance, but also keeps distress signals from going out of the area, which is why concord doesn't respond to the hostilities.These areas could have been discovered by pirate factions and accel gates were created to get to them. Some of the accel gates built limit the size of vessel able to enter the dead spaces, just like with missions.

Now, my main point behind this whole arena suggestion was mostly that CCP can find what is working in these arenas to draw people in and possibly use it to restructure low sec so that it becomes more pvp viable. in which case, the arenas will no longer be needed because low sec will be more funtional for all players.

Quote:

In any other game, I'm sure you'd find widespread support... however... given that this thread is already on page 3, the majority of the posts here are from the same 5 or people, you aren't being relentlessly trolled to oblivion, and you're now starting to bump the thread to keep it on the front page... I think it's safe to assume that the general community neither dislikes your idea, nor likes it either.

I think a lot of the lack of more support and/or negative feed back is the lack of even players that actually get involved with these forums. Hell, most don't even know how to find the forums, let alone wanna read through and post on them.

My goal here is to find a way to balance the idea so that everyone can agree on it and CCP can look at it and say "hey, these players have found a way to agree on a pvp suggestion" then maybe later on take what they've learned from the arenas if they were implemented, and if it were highly successful find a way to mimic it in low sec without taking away from what low sec is.. That way there's less people complaining about the lack of combat in low sec, and there's less people complaining about how low sec pvp funtions.

Form a corp (ala red v blue) and do it that way and bam, pvp for your high sec pubbie self.

The point is that these "arenas" dont' have to be CCP controlled or anything. All they have to do is create them and the players will do what they want with them. Just like wormhole space... Just like null sec... Just like low sec with gate camps and all.

Quote:

As for everything else you stupidly mentioned, some of those things are legitimately broken; FW mechanics are a joke and easily taken advantage of; low sec is a barren waste and the risk:reward ratio needs tweaking; wormholes...nothing; ice should not be in high sec (personal opinion, completely separate topic).

Again, these are all things that were CREATED BY CCP, but yet still player driven. Players would be the driving force behind these arenas the same way they are with the way low sec has become, the way null sec has become, and the way wormholes have become. CCP implements it and it's up to the players to do what they will with it. These arenas are no different.

Quote:

Your entire point that you don't want people gate camping/blobbing/etc is wrong though. Those are all in-game mechanics that are designed to be the way they are. You have the potential to defend against them. As I said, do it in high sec; create an "arena corporation/alliance." Or do it in low sec and have protection/security. Or do it in wormhole space and just be careful. Or do it in null sec. So much potential to create this "arena" yourself but you don't want to because its "hard and other players will be mean to you." That is pathetic.

I'm not the only one that doesn't want low sec gate camps. There are many people in eve that dislike them, and for a lot of those people, it's the exact reason they dont' get involved in pvp.

FW and several other things we've talked about are all mechanics that are designed to be the way they are, but yet players have problems with them as wel.

Players hate capital blobs because it's "hard and other players will be mean to you" with their blobs, but yet players want that fixed, so CCP is fixing it. I agree it needed to be fixed as well.So pvp'ers have the right to complain and ask for a fix to their issues, but high sec dwellers don't have a right to complain and ask for fixes to their issues?" That's kinda biased

Now, as far as suggesting to low sec dwellers that this is a good idea, that won't happen because they feel obligated to have all the pvp brought to them.

It's not that we feel that targets are "obligated" to come to us... it's just that we don't quite understand why people think they are entitled to "no risk" and "things being fair." EVE is marketed as a single-shard, cutthroat MMO where everyone can prey on everyone else and ships blow up daily. Hell... the entire market system is designed around ships blowing up.

Joe Risalo wrote:

Although, with this scenario situation, they could easily come to the pvp arena and duke it out whith way more people than they could trying to find them in low sec.

But the problem is that the system WOULD be manipulated... and then it would have to be altered to compensate (look how long it took CCP to get around to ship balancing)... where it would again be manipulated... rinse and repeat. At least in an "open world with no rules" you don't have the expectation of "things working a certain way."

Joe Risalo wrote:

Now, this also doesn't necissarily step on toes either. What it actually does is get more people involved in pvp that normally wouldn't because they don't like low/null sec pvp. Which in turn also gives those who want more pvp and to have it easier to find, exactly what they want, while allowing it to be more controlled the way high sec dwellers would want it, but still risky since you can lose ships and pods just as easy.

And here's where we run into a conflict of principles. I cannot support "PvP with controls."

Note: For reference... I find the Alliance Tournament to be nothing more than a ISK-making farce and I do not like the plexes in FW."Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."~Unknown

Now, this also doesn't necissarily step on toes either. What it actually does is get more people involved in pvp that normally wouldn't because they don't like low/null sec pvp. Which in turn also gives those who want more pvp and to have it easier to find, exactly what they want, while allowing it to be more controlled the way high sec dwellers would want it, but still risky since you can lose ships and pods just as easy.

And here's where we run into a conflict of principles. I cannot support "PvP with controls."

Note: For reference... I find the Alliance Tournament to be nothing more than a ISK-making farce and I do not like the plexes in FW.

Isn't low sec the same general concept I've put out with this "arena" suggestion?I mean, it limits the pvp actions you can take in low sec the same way it does with these arenas.

The only difference is the limitation I'm putting on the arenas with the sizes of ships that can fit through the accel gates.

Which based on missions and their accel gates, totally makes sense.

if anything, all I'm doing with these arena scenarios is creating more low sec, just in small pockets inside high sec systems.Which, a lot of low sec dwellers want....they want more low sec. This is generally giving them what they want while also getting more high sec dwellers possibly involved in pvp.

Again, these are all things that were CREATED BY CCP, but yet still player driven. Players would be the driving force behind these arenas the same way they are with the way low sec has become, the way null sec has become, and the way wormholes have become. CCP implements it and it's up to the players to do what they will with it. These arenas are no different.

Arenas imply a regulated zone that is not needed right now. We have zones where this could already take place.

Quote:

I'm not the only one that doesn't want low sec gate camps. There are many people in eve that dislike them, and for a lot of those people, it's the exact reason they dont' get involved in pvp.

That sucks. Too bad gate camps are a part of the game. They're not going anywhere.

Quote:

FW and several other things we've talked about are all mechanics that are designed to be the way they are, but yet players have problems with them as wel.

They have broken mechanics and those are the problems people have with them. They need to be fixed and fleshed out. Completely different from gate camps.

Quote:

Players hate capital blobs because it's "hard and other players will be mean to you" with their blobs, but yet players want that fixed, so CCP is fixing it. I agree it needed to be fixed as well.

It wasn't that capital blobbing needed to be fixed; it was that supercaps were simply too powerful. It was broken.

Quote:

So pvp'ers have the right to complain and ask for a fix to their issues, but high sec dwellers don't have a right to complain and ask for fixes to their issues?" That's kinda biased

The complaints are about things that are broken. Gatecamps/people harassing you with pew pew/war deccing you; these things are not broken. They are just things you don't like. There is a difference.

That post is pretty stupid though. As I've made no assumptions at all and my points are fairly valid whereas a large portion of your posts show a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and a plethora of assumptions about what others want/think is fair/think is broken/etc.

I know you think I'm trolling as is the standard belief of anyone who is disagreeing with you but I'm not. Your idea can already be implemented with current game mechanics. Simple as that.

Posted - 2011.10.11 22:47:00 -
[54] - Quote
How about just putting an arena area with all the gates surronded by Concord.

Ok, you can get in but if you haven't signed up and been given a pass, Concord are going to start nuking you. Not instanced, not limited and in keeping with the current lore.

Personally I'd prefer a marked out arena, near to some major hubs, where people can fight to the death as a form of entertainment (lore) for the masses. You can try and interfere but there will be jamming towers and lots of guns on you if you do. Start small with 1v1 only, each paring gets put in the queue to use the arena, occasionally there would be 'true' tournaments perhaps every other week in a standard tourny strucuture and perhaps group opportunities later.

Expanding it to use whole systems is a bit much IMHO.

Random teams are also bad IMHO since it just means as soon as you get a few people on comms together, they will **** everything.

Rewards are bad, you should be doing it for the rep and/or fun, not for money (beyond looting their ship)

Isn't low sec the same general concept I've put out with this "arena" suggestion?I mean, it limits the pvp actions you can take in low sec the same way it does with these arenas.

Not exactly. In low-sec you have the option to run, lead/corral/chase the enemy to certain systems/locations, make safespots, set up traps, set up counter traps, bring in ships/equipment to do certain jobs better, get caught with ships equipment that will not do the job effectively (or at all), deal with people who you didn't intend on dealing with (then your l337 PvP skillz will really be tested), at times you really don't want to deal with them, forcing you to bring in new equipment/people that you really don't like bringing in, only to have it all smashed to bits because you didn't see that Falcon decloak 70km off and you didn't bother to fit an ECCM because, well, who the **** brings a Falcon to a cruiser fight? Then watch as a Titan warps in at 230 km, insta-locks and insta-pops said Falcon with RAILGUNS and get the bright idea to scare the Titan away by forming up a small gang of HICs.

Joe Risalo wrote:

The only difference is the limitation I'm putting on the arenas with the sizes of ships that can fit through the accel gates.

Which based on missions and their accel gates, totally makes sense.

Actually, it's closer to FW plexes and how they operate. Speaking from experience, an FW plex is either the best thing for you (have 3 people in a Dramiel with long points and Loki bonuses and have them point people from 30-something away while the rest of your group alpha-snipes them with arty-fit Thrashers) or the worst (being at the receiving end of the aforementioned example)."Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."~Unknown

Not exactly. In low-sec you have the option to run, lead/corral/chase the enemy to certain systems/locations, make safespots, set up traps, set up counter traps, bring in ships/equipment to do certain jobs better, get caught with ships equipment that will not do the job effectively (or at all), deal with people who you didn't intend on dealing with (then your l337 PvP skillz will really be tested), at times you really don't want to deal with them, forcing you to bring in new equipment/people that you really don't like bringing in, only to have it all smashed to bits because you didn't see that Falcon decloak 70km off and you didn't bother to fit an ECCM because, well, who the **** brings a Falcon to a cruiser fight? Then watch as a Titan warps in at 230 km, insta-locks and insta-pops said Falcon with RAILGUNS and get the bright idea to scare the Titan away by forming up a small gang of HICs.

That's kinda another reason why i'm trying to implement this. With this you will be able to come prepared for pvp with a pvp fit and ship. You'll also be able to choose a ship class in which you want to fight.

I wouldn't say it's "controlled pvp" but more "prepared pvp". You know, the kind we all actually want to get involved in.

It's a chance for players to come prepaired for pvp of a certain ship class without worrying about getting alpha'd at a gate, or blobs dropping in of much larger or smaller ship classes that will pwn you.

You still have the option to run if you're not scrambled.

Again though, I just want somewhere to pvp where I know what i'm facing and have a better chance of actually getting a killmail. Although i'm sure you like how low sec is working out for you in a sense, I'm willing to bet that you would enjoy having somewhere to go every once in a while to pvp and have a chance of knowing what to expect.

Quote:

Actually, it's closer to FW plexes and how they operate. Speaking from experience, an FW plex is either the best thing for you (have 3 people in a Dramiel with long points and Loki bonuses and have them point people from 30-something away while the rest of your group alpha-snipes them with arty-fit Thrashers) or the worst (being at the receiving end of the aforementioned example).

Yeah,the problem I have with getting into FW is being dropped on by none FW players. When I was in FW I wanted to kill other FW targets so I wouldn't lose sec status, but the way the system works out, you're getting hit by non-FW targets more so than faction targets.

Rhinanna wrote:

Personally I'd prefer a marked out arena, near to some major hubs, where people can fight to the death as a form of entertainment (lore) for the masses. You can try and interfere but there will be jamming towers and lots of guns on you if you do. Start small with 1v1 only, each paring gets put in the queue to use the arena, occasionally there would be 'true' tournaments perhaps every other week in a standard tourny strucuture and perhaps group opportunities later

While I like the idea of tournaments on a weekly/byweekly/monthly schedule, I don't like the idea of quoing for arenas. Plus 1v1 is easily possible already by fleeting with the person you wanna fight.

The point of these arenas is that they will be ongoing battle arenas. They never stop to wait for more people to come in.

Again it's low sec pockets inside high sec with ship size limitations. So the queing for these would take completely away from that concept and make it like others have said "instancing" which I dont' like either.

Now, i'll swing with those of you who are saying no rewards besides killmails.

So basically, you can use an accel gate into these arenas that has a ship restriction, or an option for all high sec capable ships, then when in there you're warped into a never ending fight against as many players that want to come in as possible.Your ship can be destroyed and your pod can be popped, and there are no rewards besides killmails, so you have to fund the experience on your own.

Tell me precisely why you cannot use current in-game mechanics to simulate an arena of this nature.

1) you have to fleet with people in order to be able to attack them without concord involvement, unless you use agression, which means someone gets the opportunity to pull off the first shot for free, after the other person pulls the can. That one shot can make a huge difference.

2) Outside interference. If you're battling someone they can either pull another person into the fleet that will be free to attack you, or they can pull in someone to rep them while you're attacking...

3) Even if you establish a security force, this is eve, they can turn against you. Also, you have to get a security force that doesn't mind suicide ganking, and doesn't care about their sec status

4) Requires a layer of trust with your security and your opponent that isn't possible to have in eve.

5) You have to know people to establish a player created arena, and you have to know a good amount of people for security forces.

6) You have to find people who want to be involved

7) You have to establish ground rules such as ship class and what not, and that's hard to do with people you don't trust.

8) You have to find somewhere to have the arena which can be harder said than done

9) There's nothing stopping suicide ganks from spectators.

10) Hard to establish in high sec without lots of coordination, and you have way too much downtime because of the coordination.

11) You lose sec status when you kill someone, so you'll eventually be pushed out of high sec.

Alternately, here's how these are solved with the dead space arena system..

1) No method of aggression needed in the arenas, just use the accel gate to get into the arena and you're flagged until you leave the arena.

2) There is no outside interference, if you're not in the arena, then you can't get anywhere near it, and if you're in the arena, you're flagged.

3) Don't have to worry about a security force at all. if you're in the arena you're fair game for anyone.

4) No trust required. Shoot the people shooting at you.

5) Don't need to know anyone... Jump into the arena and shoot at anyone if you're free for all, or shoot at the opposing team if you're in team death match.

6) Don't have to find people to get involved. Anyone who wants to get involved goes to the nearest arena and jumps through the gate, in free for all it warps you to a random spot in the arena, and in team death match it warps you to which ever team side needs you.

7) The ground rules are the same as low sec...No bombs, bubbles...etc etc. The ship size rule is established before you even get into the arena, if you can't use the gate, then you have the wrong type of ship.

8) You don't have to find a spot for the arena, cause CCP will have set them up.

9) Again, if you're in the arena, you're flagged... there are no spectators

10) No coordination required. Just use the accel gate.

11) You won't lose any sec status for kills in the arenas. These are established for willing participants and jumping through the gate is accepting, so no one will lose sec status in arenas.

To tie along with number 9... It would be pretty cool if CCP was able to film the battle footage and post it a bit after the fact on CQ tv's.... Say, if each region had an arena, then any CQ in that region would be able to watch post footage of the battles.This would put some spice on captain's quarters and add in a layer of immersion.

Alternately... CCP could have annual free for all and team tournaments that aren't alliance based that wouldn't have to have some fancy payout, but instead the individuals and/or teams would wager their isk in order to sign up for the tournament, and the 3rd gets their money back, 2nd gets more isk, 1st gets the pot.

That's kinda another reason why i'm trying to implement this. With this you will be able to come prepared for pvp with a pvp fit and ship. You'll also be able to choose a ship class in which you want to fight.

Know this... if I know the ship I'm going to be facing (even just it's class), I'm going to fit out a ship specifically designed to kill said ship. The reason you see such a wise variety of PvP ships and fits is because no one is quite sure what they will be facing. So people either fit for "general use" or they fit for "specialty" and get friends to compensate in the areas they sacrificed.

Joe Risalo wrote:

I wouldn't say it's "controlled pvp" but more "prepared pvp". You know, the kind we all actually want to get involved in.

... poh-tay-toe... poh-tah-toe...

No... you are either "prepared" for the situation (should it happen) or you aren't. As simple as that.

Joe Risalo wrote:

It's a chance for players to come prepaired for pvp of a certain ship class without worrying about getting alpha'd at a gate, or blobs dropping in of much larger or smaller ship classes that will pwn you.

You'll still get alpha'd by the guy who gets there first... especially do if he/she fits for range and the gates warp you in at range. The only way to remedy this is to institute more "controls" to prevent people from taking advantage of the situation.

As far as limiting the "blob" idea goes... again... you're creating "instanced" environments that take away from the "free" feeling of EVE. I should also add that you are on a slippery slope with this. Make "controls" for a certain activity and everyone else is going to wonder why can't THEY have "controls" for their respective activities as well. By putting everyone under the same "umbrella" rules it sets the stage for players to deal with problems they have however they see fit. You want to "prevent blobs"... devise a tactic that encourages people to break down and fly a bit more freely (hint: such a tactic already exists... nano-fit ships).

Joe Risalo wrote:

Again though, I just want somewhere to pvp where I know what i'm facing and have a better chance of actually getting a killmail. Although i'm sure you like how low sec is working out for you in a sense, I'm willing to bet that you would enjoy having somewhere to go every once in a while to pvp and have a chance of knowing what to expect.

Go to Red vs. Blue (the corps "Red Federation" and "Blue Republic"). They have what you are asking for.

And the reason I like low-sec is because I never know what to expect. Enemies might bring battleships... so I have to have a battlecruiser or battleship on standby. Enemies might bring nano-fit stuff... so I have to bring sniper-fit stuff. The fluid nature of the combat there forces me to think on my feet and devise new and interesting tactics to counter other people's tactics. It also encourages me to team up with other people when the going gets tough.

Now if you give me an arena where I know exactly what I'm going to be facing... again... I'm going to fit a ship specifically designed to end the battle quickly, brutally, and with minimal effort (i.e. I will get a ship into the "arena" before the other guy does and alpha him at range). And it will WORK because your system doesn't encourage emergent gameplay (it encourages hyper-specialization and FOTY).

Joe Risalo wrote:

Yeah,the problem I have with getting into FW is being dropped on by none FW players. When I was in FW I wanted to kill other FW targets so I wouldn't lose sec status, but the way the system works out, you're getting hit by non-FW targets more so than faction targets.

You can wait til the pirates shoot you first (unless the person is -5, then he/she is fair game)... then you can engage them back without hurting your precious sec-status at all.No seriously, going GCC every once in awhile it isn't that bad... engaged a couple "innocents" here and there and never went below -3 (pro-tip: don't make it a habit of engaging people with positive 5.0 sec status)"Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."~Unknown

Posted - 2011.10.12 10:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
Interesting idea but a terrible one for EVEThis adds a completely different PvP style to EVE and would dull other PvP aspects of EVE...I personnally believe it would ruin the game more than benefit it...

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.